DCIT v. Schlumberger Seaco Inc. (

105 ITR 25Income Tax Appellate Tribunal#10061 most cited

What is DCIT v. Schlumberger Seaco Inc. ( authority for?

Section 44D of the Income Tax Act does not apply to income characterized as business profits, particularly when the assessee has a Permanent Establishment (PE) in India and the income falls under Section 28, which mandates computation under Sections 30 to 43D, excluding Section 44D.

10

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,315 Indian tax judgments — from 2019 to 2019.

Also referred to as

DCIT v. Schlumberger Seaco Inc. · Section 44D · Section 9(1)(vii) · business profits · Permanent Establishment · Section 28 · gross basis taxation

Also reported as

50 ITD 346

Judgments citing DCIT v. Schlumberger Seaco Inc. (

M/S Sumitomo Corporation, New Delhi vs. DCIT (International Taxation), New Delhi

Appeal are allowed

ITA 6385/DEL/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Jul 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G. D. Agrawal & Ms Suchitra Kamble

…DELHI BENCH: ‘G’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI G. D. AGRAWAL, VICE PRESIDENT AND MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 3675/DEL/2014 (A.Y 2001-02) I.T.A. No. 3676/DEL/2014 (A.Y 2002-03) I.T.A. No. 3677/DEL/2014 (A.Y 2003-04) Sumitomo Corporation Vs DDIT G-195, Sarita Vihar Circle-2(2) New Delhi International Taxation AABCS6011P New Delhi (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) I.T.A. No. 3695/DEL/2014 (A.Y 2001-02) I.T.A. No. 3696/DEL/2014 (A.Y 2002-03) I.T.A. No. 3713/DEL/2014 (A.Y 2003-04) I.T.A. No. 3714/DEL/2014 (A.Y 2004-05) DDIT Vs Sumitomo Corporation Circle-2(2) G-195, Sarita Vihar New Delhi New Delhi (…

M/S Sumitomo Corporation, New Delhi vs. DCIT (International Taxation), New Delhi

Appeal are allowed

ITA 6384/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Jul 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G. D. Agrawal & Ms Suchitra Kamble

…en India-US. The Ld. AR submitted that in the present case section 44D of the Act is not applicable since 9(1)(vii) applies to a case where person is not carrying on business – DCIT vs. Schlumberger Seaco Inc. (50 ITD 346) and Circular No. 202 dated 5.7.1976 (105 ITR 25 (statutes)). Also, once supervisory fees has been characterized as business profits, section 44D of the Act will not apply. In other words, once the assessee has a PE in India and, consequently the income is covered under Section 28 of the Act, then the computation would be made in accordance with section 30 to 43D, which apparently excludes the o…

Sumitomo Corporation, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

Appeal are allowed

ITA 1114/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Jul 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G. D. Agrawal & Ms Suchitra Kamble

…DELHI BENCH: ‘G’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI G. D. AGRAWAL, VICE PRESIDENT AND MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 3675/DEL/2014 (A.Y 2001-02) I.T.A. No. 3676/DEL/2014 (A.Y 2002-03) I.T.A. No. 3677/DEL/2014 (A.Y 2003-04) Sumitomo Corporation Vs DDIT G-195, Sarita Vihar Circle-2(2) New Delhi International Taxation AABCS6011P New Delhi (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) I.T.A. No. 3695/DEL/2014 (A.Y 2001-02) I.T.A. No. 3696/DEL/2014 (A.Y 2002-03) I.T.A. No. 3713/DEL/2014 (A.Y 2003-04) I.T.A. No. 3714/DEL/2014 (A.Y 2004-05) DDIT Vs Sumitomo Corporation Circle-2(2) G-195, Sarita Vihar New Delhi New Delhi (…

DDIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Sumitomo Corporation, New Delhi

Appeal are allowed

ITA 3714/DEL/2014[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Jul 2019AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri G. D. Agrawal & Ms Suchitra Kamble

…en India-US. The Ld. AR submitted that in the present case section 44D of the Act is not applicable since 9(1)(vii) applies to a case where person is not carrying on business – DCIT vs. Schlumberger Seaco Inc. (50 ITD 346) and Circular No. 202 dated 5.7.1976 (105 ITR 25 (statutes)). Also, once supervisory fees has been characterized as business profits, section 44D of the Act will not apply. In other words, once the assessee has a PE in India and, consequently the income is covered under Section 28 of the Act, then the computation would be made in accordance with section 30 to 43D, which apparently excludes the o…

DDIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Sumitomo Corporation, New Delhi

Appeal are allowed

ITA 3713/DEL/2014[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Jul 2019AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri G. D. Agrawal & Ms Suchitra Kamble

…en India-US. The Ld. AR submitted that in the present case section 44D of the Act is not applicable since 9(1)(vii) applies to a case where person is not carrying on business – DCIT vs. Schlumberger Seaco Inc. (50 ITD 346) and Circular No. 202 dated 5.7.1976 (105 ITR 25 (statutes)). Also, once supervisory fees has been characterized as business profits, section 44D of the Act will not apply. In other words, once the assessee has a PE in India and, consequently the income is covered under Section 28 of the Act, then the computation would be made in accordance with section 30 to 43D, which apparently excludes the o…

DDIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Sumitomo Corporation, New Delhi

Appeal are allowed

ITA 3696/DEL/2014[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Jul 2019AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri G. D. Agrawal & Ms Suchitra Kamble

…DELHI BENCH: ‘G’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI G. D. AGRAWAL, VICE PRESIDENT AND MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 3675/DEL/2014 (A.Y 2001-02) I.T.A. No. 3676/DEL/2014 (A.Y 2002-03) I.T.A. No. 3677/DEL/2014 (A.Y 2003-04) Sumitomo Corporation Vs DDIT G-195, Sarita Vihar Circle-2(2) New Delhi International Taxation AABCS6011P New Delhi (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) I.T.A. No. 3695/DEL/2014 (A.Y 2001-02) I.T.A. No. 3696/DEL/2014 (A.Y 2002-03) I.T.A. No. 3713/DEL/2014 (A.Y 2003-04) I.T.A. No. 3714/DEL/2014 (A.Y 2004-05) DDIT Vs Sumitomo Corporation Circle-2(2) G-195, Sarita Vihar New Delhi New Delhi (…

DDIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Sumitomo Corporation, New Delhi

Appeal are allowed

ITA 3695/DEL/2014[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Jul 2019AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri G. D. Agrawal & Ms Suchitra Kamble

…en India-US. The Ld. AR submitted that in the present case section 44D of the Act is not applicable since 9(1)(vii) applies to a case where person is not carrying on business – DCIT vs. Schlumberger Seaco Inc. (50 ITD 346) and Circular No. 202 dated 5.7.1976 (105 ITR 25 (statutes)). Also, once supervisory fees has been characterized as business profits, section 44D of the Act will not apply. In other words, once the assessee has a PE in India and, consequently the income is covered under Section 28 of the Act, then the computation would be made in accordance with section 30 to 43D, which apparently excludes the o…

Sumitomo Corporation, Delhi vs. DDIT, New Delhi

Appeal are allowed

ITA 3677/DEL/2014[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Jul 2019AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri G. D. Agrawal & Ms Suchitra Kamble

…en India-US. The Ld. AR submitted that in the present case section 44D of the Act is not applicable since 9(1)(vii) applies to a case where person is not carrying on business – DCIT vs. Schlumberger Seaco Inc. (50 ITD 346) and Circular No. 202 dated 5.7.1976 (105 ITR 25 (statutes)). Also, once supervisory fees has been characterized as business profits, section 44D of the Act will not apply. In other words, once the assessee has a PE in India and, consequently the income is covered under Section 28 of the Act, then the computation would be made in accordance with section 30 to 43D, which apparently excludes the o…

Sumitomo Corporation, Delhi vs. DDIT, New Delhi

Appeal are allowed

ITA 3676/DEL/2014[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Jul 2019AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri G. D. Agrawal & Ms Suchitra Kamble

…en India-US. The Ld. AR submitted that in the present case section 44D of the Act is not applicable since 9(1)(vii) applies to a case where person is not carrying on business – DCIT vs. Schlumberger Seaco Inc. (50 ITD 346) and Circular No. 202 dated 5.7.1976 (105 ITR 25 (statutes)). Also, once supervisory fees has been characterized as business profits, section 44D of the Act will not apply. In other words, once the assessee has a PE in India and, consequently the income is covered under Section 28 of the Act, then the computation would be made in accordance with section 30 to 43D, which apparently excludes the o…

Sumitomo Corporation, New Delhi vs. DDIT, New Delhi

Appeal are allowed

ITA 3675/DEL/2014[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Jul 2019AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri G. D. Agrawal & Ms Suchitra Kamble

…en India-US. The Ld. AR submitted that in the present case section 44D of the Act is not applicable since 9(1)(vii) applies to a case where person is not carrying on business – DCIT vs. Schlumberger Seaco Inc. (50 ITD 346) and Circular No. 202 dated 5.7.1976 (105 ITR 25 (statutes)). Also, once supervisory fees has been characterized as business profits, section 44D of the Act will not apply. In other words, once the assessee has a PE in India and, consequently the income is covered under Section 28 of the Act, then the computation would be made in accordance with section 30 to 43D, which apparently excludes the o…

DCIT v. Schlumberger Seaco Inc. ( (105 ITR 25) — Cited in 10 Judgments | BharatTax